If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Redefining Marriage

If there remains any degree of reasoning within same-sex supporters, Mr. Newcombe would like to ask them a few points to consider. It remains a drive to run the definition of marriage right to the hilt of perversion and beyond. Herein is a call to halt the obvious.

The Supreme Court is slated to rule on the subject of same-sex “marriage” this term. Here are four questions I want to ask same-sex marriage supporters:

1) If the Supreme Court says that it is OK for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then how can they stop there?

Once they open Pandora’s Box, how can they say that polygamy is uncons***utional? The Supreme Court already ruled on that. Utah, a state founded by Mormons, could not be accepted in the Union until there was the promise that they would not practice polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 1878.

If the Supreme Court rules to “redefine” marriage beyond one man-one woman, then how can they say a man can’t marry his sister, or a mother her son, or a man and his dog, or two men and one woman? How can they legally draw a line? Proponents of same-sex marriage howl at such questions, but three men just “married” in Thailand the other day.

2) How do you prevent legalizing same-sex marriage from erasing religious liberty?

America began for the most part as various Christian groups fled persecution in their home country. And now in a nation created for religious liberty that has provided religious liberty for all, regardless of creed, shall Christians be persecuted again?

Already where same-sex marriage is being accepted, it is becoming illegal as a florist, a baker, a photographer, etc. to decline providing one’s artistic services (if you perform them for heterosexual weddings) to same-sex weddings. Conscience be ****ed. What’s next? Ministers, priests, and rabbis to have to perform such “weddings,” or risk losing everything?

To borrow an argument from my colleague John Rabe: Could you imagine the uproar if the government tried to force an African-American printer to use his artistic skills and shop to produce fliers for a KKK rally, despite his objections because of his conscience?

Legalizing same-sex marriage effectively makes those who hold to traditional values second cl*** citizens, especially when the forces of “tolerance” insist on hauling anyone who disagrees into court.

If the Supreme Court says yes to same-sex marriage, they will be defying the First Amendment to the Cons***ution, which spells out in writing that we have the right of the “free exercise” of religion, in order to grant rights nowhere found, but manufactured, so that they cater to currently prevailing sexual mores and the bullies who propagate them.

At that point, why even pretend that their decisions are based on the Cons***ution?

3) How do you deal with the fact that ****sexuality is not immutable?

For the record, there are thousands of Americans alive today who are former ****sexuals and former lesbians---freed from their sin by Jesus. There are groups all around the country still active in helping people deal with all this, www.restoredhopenetwork.org. And there are many ex-gays who have changed through psychological means, unrelated to religion.

Being ****sexual is not an immutable trait. Indeed, even those who argue for the alphabet soup of genders we are now expected to recognize often tell us that sexuality is “fluid.” When you involve marriage, you are involving the law---marriage codifies a relationship into law. But what if somebody is gay one day and not the next? Sexual anarchy leads to legal anarchy.

4) Why are the voters of this country so marginalized?

In a recent interview I did with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he notes that even though same-sex marriage is now legal in some 37 states, only in three of those states was it voted in by the people. In two of them, it was voted by the legislatures, the people’s representatives. With all the rest of the states, it only became legal by judicial fiat.

Generally, when the people have had the chance to vote on this issue, they have voted---even in liberal states---overwhelmingly in favor of marriage being defined as between one-man and one-woman. Should we change the Cons***ution from “We the people” to “We the judges”?

If you say that only bigots reject same-sex marriage---which is the means by which some are losing their ***s today---then was President Obama a bigot through mid-2012, when he said that he thought marriage was between one man and one woman?

Commentator Bob Knight said years ago that if ****sexual couples wanted to express their love in public ceremonies, that’s their prerogative. But if you call it “marriage,” then that impacts all of us since marriage involves the law.

In short, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I am in favor of freedom---freedom guaranteed in the Cons***ution.

Matthew 19:8 (AV) 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

And certainly the serial monogamy we have turned marriage into here in America has redefined it.

Before that was the "it's okay to cheat" mentality (typically reserved for the husbands).

News flash: ANY deviation from the course God chartered for sex and sexuality (and marriage) is a perversion!

We lesser perverts get so up in arms about the greater perverts, don't we!

The Bible is its own best commentary.Prophecy is the word of God

which sometimes speaks of future... sometimes of the present... sometimes of the past.A prophet is the tool God uses.It's not about the prophet, but about the God who uses the prophet to speak his word...

(Im pointing out that we can disagree over ideas without any need at all to make this so ...um...(whats the word Im looking for?..."personal"?)...after all, we spend so much time here, talking to the very same people about the very same things, over and over, week after week...that it would be silly not to consider all you guys each other's "on-line friends")

(Im pointing out that we can disagree over ideas without any need at all to make this so ...um...(whats the word Im looking for?..."personal"?)...after all, we spend so much time here, talking to the very same people about the very same things, over and over, week after week...that it would be silly not to consider all you guys each other's "on-line friends")

Let me see if I got this then, Come and sign up, develop a presence wherever that might be, hope God will bring someone like-minded along to develop some friendships, and if along the way you discover they might have some idiosyncrasies with the word, that’s okay, they can perpetrate that error in full daylight, our comp***ion will cover for that.

Christian charity should allow a Christian to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

You mean perpetually disagreeable I take that as. But the reverse scenario also applies within the realm of Christian charity; suffering long under a spirit of rebellion against the word and will of God.

So, which side does the scriptures say we should give greater preeminence to; "mercy over judgement" or "correction" for one taken in a fault. If you need me to point this out to you, I will. But I'm sure you already know the duration of mercy, and the actual act of covering "a mul***ude of sins" is only for a duration for those who generally are ignorant of His will. But if left to remain uncontested and unrepentant of, what does the word of God say in no uncertain terms:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Rm 1:18)

Quite unrealistic for the small slip, but you seem detached from the knowledge of this. Is my kindness still now not to be found, still calloused to be soo quick to correct, or am I now convinced by you that the will of God's charity and correction will be welcomed here only when convenient?